While defenses to paying Ms. Leane exist because she signed the ASA (D.I. 6, Ex. C) on which the Arbitration Award is based on behalf of both IPNAV and Chanbond, allegedly without obtaining Plaintiff’s consent to this interested transaction and then fraudulently failed to disclose her self-interested execution of the ASA when she sold Chanbond to its current owner, the Arbitration Award presents an impediment to Plaintiff’s ability to succeed on the merits. Because the question of whether the Arbitration Award is enforceable must be decided prior to any further distributions to Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on the merits. As such, the Motion should be denied.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.